Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The matter of the main motion and the proposal that it be recommended to the House and be reported to the House stands on the merit of all the work the committee has done so far.
I know we're debating the subamendment, but I have some concern about the amendment, in that it now questions the whole idea of whether we have had enough discussion on this matter. Obviously, there has been a lot of discussion, and it has prompted a recommendation that the committee is embracing and that I'm sure it will want to report at some point.
Mr. Chair, I guess the question is whether the amendment has in fact changed the fundamental nature of the motion before the committee, beyond the scope of what's necessary. Mr. Chairman, if you don't like what a motion is saying, you can't amend it to change the fundamentals of the motion. You just defeat it and then make a new motion. So that amendment is probably the area that's problematic.
Now, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has indicated that it's certainly his intent to deal with the other matter referred to the committee. Right now, it would appear that the nature of the motion now before the committee is very time sensitive. It would appear that should the committee proceed down this route of doing a study, it basically is saying, “Let's defeat it.” I urge the committee to reconsider the route we're on right now, because it could very well frustrate both items. And I don't think that's the intent of all honourable members. If there's not a clear consensus that the recommendation is worthy to go to the House, I would appeal to members to simply vote on it and have it defeated by those members who feel that way and vote against it.
I raise this, Mr. Chair, because you asked whether there was a technical reason. There may not be a clear technical reason for it not being admissible, but there certainly is a “best interest” matter specifically related to the time-sensitive nature of the original motion.